Actually, you don't know exactly what they do unless you have spoken with someone about the exact example.

Sometimes, the sourcing company (907, etc.) pays for the design and tooling. Usually, if this is the case, the sourcing company has full rights to the tooling and any parts that come out of it. (but not always)

Sometimes, the manufacturer (Chinese company) pays for the design and tooling. Usually, if this is the case, the manufacturer can make and sell the parts to anyone they want. (but not always)

Sometimes, they split the costs of the design and the tooling. This is more wide open for possibilities.

The point is, that many possible scenarios exist and you shouldn't assume anything unless you know who spent the time and money to design and build the tooling. Not to mention the legal documents that follow and support the previous information.

Any company outsourcing components has to deal with these issues. If they don't, then they leave themselves open to having their stuff "stolen" without a legal leg to stand on if they want to do something about it.

This sounds about right. However, China is famous for its lack of respect for intellectual property rights. Even if you have an ironclad agreement about who owns what, there's a fair chance that the design will end up being copied by a different manufacturer than the one you contracted with. It can happen by employee theft, bribery, or simply copying the finished product. The legal protections over there are simply not as strong as in the US and other countries.

I think discussions like these are fine. If you care about any of this stuff, vote with your wallet. It's one of the few times you have any real power.

Yeah, China is lax about patents, IP, etc. While some companies take advantage of that and the relative difficulty for "us" to do anything about it, not all companies are that bad.

In the case of the Moto version of the Diamants, the MB's are the old MKII versions from Diamant. They didn't have a specific lock on that design, so MB was apparently able to go with those frames. Espen was surprised, but more flattered than upset. Not all designers will be so easy-going in that situation.

However, on the later versions, Diamant is holding them for themselves only. So they should have some security that their latter work is more "safe" from other sales.

In the case of the Moto version of the Diamants, the MB's are the old MKII versions from Diamant. They didn't have a specific lock on that design, so MB was apparently able to go with those frames. Espen was surprised, but more flattered than upset. Not all designers will be so easy-going in that situation.

I'm not familiar with that, but it reminds me of something similar. Moots simply never cared about everyone and their brother copying their YBB design, even though they could've patented it and licensed it. IIRC, it was altruism -- they were proud of the design and didn't want to see it restricted to bikes most folks couldn't afford.

If you care about any of this stuff, vote with your wallet. It's one of the few times you have any real power.

This is about it. This exact pattern of conversation has happened elsewhere in the past (although, surprisingly, and worthy of praise, this one has not yet satisfied Godwin's law), the only differing variable being the absurd seat / chain stays that we like.

Maybe these designs are on the up and up, and maybe the employees applying carbon and finishing carbon are getting paid something resembling a livable wage. Can't really know unless you're there or privy to the info.

With that in mind I don't feel as comfortable as buckfiddious in being argumentative about going this route. But dude I also don't take umbrage with your opinion, because you might be right.

If cheap Chinese labor were nonexistent, I think the US would adapt by automating the crap out of applying carbon plies to molds or bladders through the use of robots. But, you know, it exists, so screw that when someone wants to hit a bottom line.

Look at food processing, for example. It can be done. And if that happens, people lose their jobs (except for robotics engineers).

...Right? Damn. Catch 22.

And yet some people, specific example, prefer to get their meat from a local butcher. They do this because they care where their product began and completed, for specific attributes etc.

Gives me hope, considering how I've been busying myself this year.

I truly hope the guys who have paid for any R&D aren't getting ripped off.

At least this isn't audiophile marketing. In terms of compromised principles, it can get SO much worse...

Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

Personally, if those Carbondale rims I want wind up being available cheaper from China, I'll ask Borealis about it. If they're getting ripped off, I'll pay the premium for their product. If they don't care, I'll save some money, but not before asking if they want to "sponsor" my Alubooyah build (which is sure to attract attention) by getting their logo on it in exchange for a sweet deal. Nothing wrong with asking a manufacturer this sort of thing.

Personally, if those Carbondale rims I want wind up being available cheaper from China, I'll ask Borealis about it. If they're getting ripped off, I'll pay the premium for their product. If they don't care, I'll save some money, but not before asking if they want to "sponsor" my Alubooyah build (which is sure to attract attention) by getting their logo on it in exchange for a sweet deal. Nothing wrong with asking a manufacturer this sort of thing.

So you are going to ask a bike manufacturer to sponsor you in building another brand of bike? I can see I'm not the only one partaking in some of natures finer spirits tonight.

Personally, if those Carbondale rims I want wind up being available cheaper from China, I'll ask Borealis about it. If they're getting ripped off, I'll pay the premium for their product. If they don't care, I'll save some money, but not before asking if they want to "sponsor" my Alubooyah build (which is sure to attract attention) by getting their logo on it in exchange for a sweet deal. Nothing wrong with asking a manufacturer this sort of thing.

I'm not sure I follow - you're asking for something resembling a price match on their product if they don't care?

As you know I'm pro-bamboo but I think you vastly overestimate the advertising effect your bike will have.

I've been offered to be "paid" for my web software services by placing a link to my personal site on the client's site. I can answer on behalf of Borealis in advance with a probably 90% accuracy: NO.

Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

I'm not sure I follow - you're asking for something resembling a price match on their product if they don't care?

Even if they don't care if I buy the "knockoff" I'm sure they still care about selling their branded rims to others, particularly those who aren't aware of the "knockoffs"; plus I'm also in the market for a fork, which they also sell. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I like to haggle, particularly when it has the potential to help a small business instead of just being a handout, which isn't what I'd be asking for.

Originally Posted by Drew Diller

As you know I'm pro-bamboo but I think you vastly overestimate the advertising effect your bike will have.

Not really. I figure that even jaded fatbikers will be interested in frames (i.e. those with bamboo in them) they haven't encountered before; if this leads to one sale of rims or wheels to someone who rides my bike and likes them, they will have broken even on the deal they gave me. If I was talking anything beyond that, yeah I'd be overestimating, but all I'm talking about is a few hundred bucks for some guerrilla marketing they otherwise wouldn't get if my bike's sporting the "knockoffs".

Originally Posted by Drew Diller

I've been offered to be "paid" for my web software services by placing a link to my personal site on the client's site. I can answer on behalf of Borealis in advance with a probably 90% accuracy: NO.

I've done just that for nonprofits, provided they pay me for hosting their site, and drummed up more business than the pro-bono work cost. It's that other 10% that makes it worth asking, and I don't see how it's any skin off anyone's nose, or leads to hard feelings. My point about the "knockoffs" remains, talk to the company in question, feel them out, be polite and sometimes good things can happen.

Perhaps just for being decent enough to contact them first, instead of simply buying the cheaper option without caring if it's an illegitimate knockoff.

Clearly, Borealis is not one of those. Your answer still sounds like a price match.

That's fortunate that pro bono worked for you. I got burned one too many times. My skepticism remains but if you have that kind of luck, then haggle away. I'm not saying it's 100% true but the majority of people who approached me in that way were trying to screw me from the beginning. So if you are the 10% type that don't, I'll just have to take your word for it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in the "won't know until I ask" camp about some things.

Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

Clearly, Borealis is not one of those. Your answer still sounds like a price match.

A better analogy would be automotive performance tuning, such sponsorships/price-matching/whatever you want to call it aren't uncommon; not sure why it's an alien concpet to bike building. Another analogy would be monoskis -- buddy and I were riding a quad chairlift w/ two folks from the "singles" lane. One of them wanted to know all about monoskiing, which I'm always happy to talk about. The other one turned out to be a rep for a small monoski company, I told him I wasn't in the market for a new ski, he told his boss they needed to get me on their ski instead of Rossignol's, got a free monoski without even asking, for agreeing not to ride the Rossi. If I hadn't liked the Snowshark better I'd have given it back, I'm not for sale.

Nothing about Borealis leads me to remotely suspect QC issues, but when I do visit them I expect they'll be just as forthcoming as BooBikes was when I visited them, about their QA/QC and development issues -- and likely just as willing to share their destructive-testing and failure-analysis data with me. Try getting that level of CS from the big players, whereas smaller companies are eager to show they have nothing to hide or need to handwave around with slick PR.

I wasn't going to address this, but the QC issue brings up another possibility with Chinese carbon-fiber goods -- What if those Yampalikes are actually Borealis rejects? If you follow. The manufacturer is stuck with finished goods they haven't been paid for, so fix 'em up (hopefully) and sell 'em. The manufacturer probably still wants Borealis' business, so this is probably part of the deal (as opposed to a sneaky backhanded thing to do), unless the start-up company wants to pay for all the defective frames. Just speculating here, but you may get what you pay for with the Chinese frames, vs. paying more for QA/QC and a better warranty from Borealis.

But isn't that their market, where rims/hubs/forks are concerned? People who aren't building up one of their frames?

Yeah I'm sure your bike will help them unload the warehouse full of rims they are having a hard time dumping. I think Drew nailed it, "I think you vastly overestimate the advertising effect your bike will have" It could almost be construed as an insult to him he actually built a frame without sponsorship parts being offered you are just buying a frame and putting a bike together.

Am I the only one confused here? Why would Borealis supply free components to a build of a competitor's frame?

Anyway, I work "in the industry" (as a writer) and getting free schwag ain't what it used to be. Lately, tightening margins have even been leading to a lot of companies moving to the 'review and return' model where in the past most items were keepers.

If you have verified published content with millions of views (documented) you *might* be able to get industry pricing, which is essentially wholesale or 'dealer cost'

Selling cheap carbon on ebay- is this simply a back-door route around a contract? I was thinking about this last night as I was trying to understand the whole idea. Because the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.

Figure, if you've got a $450 carbon frame to sell, even if you double the price, you've got a market dominating product, just on cost. And that goes for all segments of the bike industry, road, cross, MTB, 29er, Fat, whatever. So why not just sell them on the open market and OWN the entire market? I mean, you're a chinese/taiwanese bike manufacturer. ALL THE PARTS are made right there in your back yard. You could Bikes Direct the whole thing online, cut out the middleman and dominate the market. How many fatties did BD sell? All of them. They sold all the fatties they made.

But this is not what the ebay carbon guys are doing. They're selling frames one at a time on the least efficient marketplace I can think of, one that's charging them a butt-load of fees just for the privilege of using their own proprietary payment system.

We've already established that the chinese frame makers are pretty smart businessmen. So why would they do this? it makes zero sense. Ebay makes zero sense for them. It's an expensive way to sell frames. There's zero chance of promoting your sales or your product.

The only way it makes sense is if you have a non-compete with the people you make the frames for. If you aren't allowed to sell competing frames in the same markets, ebay seems like a way around that.

Seriously, trying to wrap my head around the idea of "we make a top quality product at the best price in the world" and "we only sell it on ebay, a marketplace most known these days as the world's largest flea market..."

I imagine the ebay route takes away any issues with setting up a payment system. Also consider that by selling them this way they are not operating in the US (in my case) and therefore don't have to protect themselves from litigation. I have a friend who has a low volume, custom bike business, he says it costs him $600 per frame for insurance (I might not have that figure exactly right, but its a lot of money). I would bet by selling from China through Ebay they don't have those same concerns. Maybe they use Ebay to hide behind copyright infringement, I don't know.

I'm sure in their minds they are marketing a "top quality product", but that's not their spot in the market. Its a low budget "almost as good" (at best) product. Anyone who buys one of those frames and thinks they are getting something comparable to a brand name product is fooling themselves. Just consider the support angle alone, you get next to nothing besides an email address with these frames.

Bdundee and Drew have it right. Everyone thinks they should get a deal because they have some delusional belief that by them just riding the product will garner sales.

If I pay full price, where's my motivation to stop and chat about my rims instead of getting on with my ride? OTOH, give me a deal (never even suggested "free" as some people seem to think) and I become your biggest booster, and do more of my riding where the tourists are instead of avoiding them.

Everyone's right that I shouldn't get my hopes up, but then again I don't have my hopes up, my point was that it doesn't hurt to ask -- which doesn't seem worthy of the ridicule it's getting, do you guys pay sticker price for new vehicles, too? Worst-case scenario is I only get the best bike I can afford, but, why not try to get a better bike than I can otherwise afford?

The take away here is from now on when I read one of your posts claiming a product is good I'll assume you are schilling it just because you got a deal.

I guess it's too much to expect the benefit of the doubt, that I would disclose any such conflicts, or that a few hundred bucks would stop me from dumping on a product that doesn't live up to expectations. People who know me, know that my ethics and integrity aren't for sale -- I wouldn't take a handout, or even a discount, in exchange for a positive review.

If I pay full price, where's my motivation to stop and chat about my rims instead of getting on with my ride? OTOH, give me a deal (never even suggested "free" as some people seem to think) and I become your biggest booster, and do more of my riding where the tourists are instead of avoiding them.

Everyone's right that I shouldn't get my hopes up, but then again I don't have my hopes up, my point was that it doesn't hurt to ask -- which doesn't seem worthy of the ridicule it's getting, do you guys pay sticker price for new vehicles, too? Worst-case scenario is I only get the best bike I can afford, but, why not try to get a better bike than I can otherwise afford?

Originally Posted by bikefat

... People who know me, know that my ethics and integrity aren't for sale -- I wouldn't take a handout, or even a discount, in exchange for a positive review.

Of all the people in the world, you US guys should understand and support free markets.

There are expensive 29ers, custom 29ers and cheap copy 29ers. All being produced and all being bought at the price point each customer can afford.

Fat bikes will be just the same, best of all more and more riders will enjoy their Fat Bikes, and have to confidence to spend greater amounts on custom and specialist frames and components.

Get real.

Brian

Free markets are one thing, but supporting counterfeiters is another. What these cheap bikes feed is our sense of entitlement and ignore our responsibilities to our communities. I can't afford to buy a 9:Zero:7 or Borealis fatbike; I believe in supporting my "local" economy and the innovators that invest in it. When someone comes along with no connection to my community, offering a product similar to that, based on the intellectual property, but at half the price, but none of my money remains in my community as a result of that product, I will pass. I will instead buy what I can afford, or make sacrifices on my own to get what I want, but I will not sacrifice my community to satisfy my desire or greed. This goes for bikes, or general merchandise. I buy local when I can, but not necessarily exclusively. I support innovators and those who invest in my community and "community" does not have to mean local. A merchant selling someone else's intellectual property only hurts us all and will reduce the amount of innovation available to us all.

I am just happy there will be another nice used steel or aluminum frame available to me soon as people flock to the carbon!!

I can hear a Moonie in my Future!

I have one, you want it?? ;p

Been thinking about a Carbon myself. But I seen a BearGrease and I didn't care for the layup...big ass seams right down the top tube, and the down tube....I'm scared that my fat ass might split that carbon right open.

Been thinking about a Carbon myself. But I seen a BearGrease and I didn't care for the layup...big ass seams right down the top tube, and the down tube....I'm scared that my fat ass might split that carbon right open.

Seams that bisect the front triangle down the middle from bird's eye view, or radial seams where tubes are joined into lugs?

I'm not a fan of the former (have a Trek Superfly in my garage waiting for me to finish the repair on it), but I'm fine with the latter (huge internal surface areas for bonding).

Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

The ones I seen ran the length of the tube from joint to joint. I'm no engineer, it's probably just the outer layer. But I'm thinking the seam was what you described first. I wish I had taken a pic. It was on the Raw Finish Carbon Frame (The one with the White Paint in places) but it was noticeable to me, and I'm about 230 pounds and I abuse bikes....I'd love to get a Carbon Fatty, but, if that's the way they are layed up, I'm just scared of it failing.

The ones I seen ran the length of the tube from joint to joint. I'm no engineer, it's probably just the outer layer. But I'm thinking the seam was what you described first. I wish I had taken a pic. It was on the Raw Finish Carbon Frame (The one with the White Paint in places) but it was noticeable to me, and I'm about 230 pounds and I abuse bikes....I'd love to get a Carbon Fatty, but, if that's the way they are layed up, I'm just scared of it failing.

On the Other hand I also seen the Ti MukLuk, and that was B-U-Ti-Ful

This other part is harder to quantify unless you're up close studying the frame - do the fibers sort of mirror-image each other exactly across the bisection?

...And you know, it doesn't really matter. You should ride what you're confident on. Let's say your Nonbranded Uber Light Frame is perfectly safe no matter what weight / level of aggression you are... if you don't subjectively trust it, then you'll be thinking about it while riding, as opposed to riding.

Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

This other part is harder to quantify unless you're up close studying the frame - do the fibers sort of mirror-image each other exactly across the bisection?

...And you know, it doesn't really matter. You should ride what you're confident on. Let's say your Nonbranded Uber Light Frame is perfectly safe no matter what weight / level of aggression you are... if you don't subjectively trust it, then you'll be thinking about it while riding, as opposed to riding.

The Fibers were Parallel on both sides of the seam on the one I seen.

And I agree with ya about riding what you're confident with. I'll most likely just stick with my Big Fat Fatty Moonlander, because I do love it, but I'm like most of you, there is always something cool that comes along that you want to try.....always in search of the end bike, if you will. A Carrot on a stick adventure!

Maybe you meant boards ie Cobra factory.
While many brands were built at this factory, they did
Have their own molds and layups

UOTE=keyhavenpotterer;10853861]I think you may have misunderstood my point, not sure but think so.

It's actually the Chinese factory that makes all the investment, has all the technical skills to design, test and manufacture the high tec carbon frame. They make both the expensive frame for the boutique fat bike house and the medium price frame and the low cost direct frame. They make frames for all the markets so they can achieve the volume they need and the average price they need to survive.

Piracy has nothing to do with this business model. Nothing what so ever.

Some years back I was a windsurfer. There was only one factory in the whole world that made windsurfing sails. Every brand went there, had them design and make what they wanted and sold the sail at the price they could achieve. That one factory had all the skills to achieve what was needed.

According to what I heard, late January into February is when they will have frames available. I will post if I get an email (I asked Peter to let me know).

I have no idea about any contractual constructs, but I know that this company is making their own (i.e. non-private) molds for these bikes. They have been doing this for a long time with other hardtail frames, presumably without any litigation, and yes I know copyright laws are notoriously lax in China.

From what I have read, I believe this company is operating on the up and up with regards to copyrights. Just because they are within the law does not mean it is an ethical choice, you will have to make that decision on your own.

I believe most "regular" bike companies are heavily involved in the development of the frame with geometry etc, I think only retailers like Minnesota and Bikes Direct would sell a "pre-developed" bike, but that's pure speculation on my part.

What it doesn't explain is why they changed their wording and removed the geo chart that mirrored that of the Borealis. Sorry just seems kinda funny they change things after people notice something fishy. Heck they even changed the frame weight by 25g as to make it look not so obvious. Then there is the chance I am totally off with all of this if so I apologize.

Carbon fat bike wheels are the real breakthrough here. 907, Fatback, Salsa all make alloy frames that are slightly heavier than carbon frames. The real savings are in the rims. Look at the weight difference between the 13 Alloy Beargrease and the 14 Carbon bear grease… I don't recall the exact number, but I think it's less than 200 grams.

Carbon fat bike wheels are the real breakthrough here. 907, Fatback, Salsa all make alloy frames that are slightly heavier than carbon frames. The real savings are in the rims. Look at the weight difference between the 13 Alloy Beargrease and the 14 Carbon bear grease… I don't recall the exact number, but I think it's less than 200 grams.

DSTONGE, maddslacker, and mtuck1,
I couldn't agree more with you guys. While a carbon frame rides nice and is a bit lighter, the real WIN is definitely lighter wheels. I'm definitely watching the "carbon rim competition" that is just starting!

After ruminating about this way too much, I'm thinking I'm going to put a carbon fork, rims, stem and bars on my FB4. I think that's a way to lose some weight at a reasonable cost, I need to calculate that.

Selling cheap carbon on ebay- is this simply a back-door route around a contract? I was thinking about this last night as I was trying to understand the whole idea. Because the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.

Figure, if you've got a $450 carbon frame to sell, even if you double the price, you've got a market dominating product, just on cost. And that goes for all segments of the bike industry, road, cross, MTB, 29er, Fat, whatever. So why not just sell them on the open market and OWN the entire market? I mean, you're a chinese/taiwanese bike manufacturer. ALL THE PARTS are made right there in your back yard. You could Bikes Direct the whole thing online, cut out the middleman and dominate the market. How many fatties did BD sell? All of them. They sold all the fatties they made.

But this is not what the ebay carbon guys are doing. They're selling frames one at a time on the least efficient marketplace I can think of, one that's charging them a butt-load of fees just for the privilege of using their own proprietary payment system.

We've already established that the chinese frame makers are pretty smart businessmen. So why would they do this? it makes zero sense. Ebay makes zero sense for them. It's an expensive way to sell frames. There's zero chance of promoting your sales or your product.

The only way it makes sense is if you have a non-compete with the people you make the frames for. If you aren't allowed to sell competing frames in the same markets, ebay seems like a way around that.

Seriously, trying to wrap my head around the idea of "we make a top quality product at the best price in the world" and "we only sell it on ebay, a marketplace most known these days as the world's largest flea market..."

"we make a top quality product at the best price in the world" doesn't matter much if no one knows about the product. Or if people don't really trust that it is a "top quality product'.

What you're trying to wrap your head around is marketing. Companies invest a ton of money into marketing. In fact, they usually spend much much more on marketing than R&D. They do it because marketing has a high ROI.

The sellers of cheap chinese carbon are working off of a business model that doesn't invest in or spend marketing dollars. Their customers must find them! And trust them blindly. Theirs is a very different customer base than 9:zero:7 or Borealis or Salsa.

In my opinion, it isn't the moral high ground to refuse to buy products from people in poor countries based upon the justification that they have a different opinion on of idea ownership. In fact, I view our patent system as doing more harm than good. Other countries aren't doing something they consider bad. Instead, they have a different moral code that views their own standards as superior.

To me, the most altruistic position would be to buy products from companies that result in the highest net good on the planet. Should we enrich a few people in a wealthy nation or help bring a larger number of people out of poverty in a poor nation? It seems morally more justifiable to enrich many rather than a few.

The situation would be different if these were massive corporations that move work around constantly to wherever destitute workers will work for nearly nothing. Yet I don't think that is the case here. Most of these "chinese carbon" companies (that actually have real names) are small organizations built with local management and labor that all work in the same building. This model is what is bringing hundreds of millions of chinese into the middle class.

I bought Light Bicycle rims because of this and I wouldn't hesitate to buy a carbon fat bike from a similar company. But just to make it clear, Light Bicycles manufactures their own design. And yet people still just generically refer to them as "chinese" and and accuse them of all kinds of things. To me, that reeks of unreasoned xenophobia.

There is valid criticism to be made. But if it starts with non-specific criticism of "chinese", chances are that it is not well reasoned.

"we make a top quality product at the best price in the world" doesn't matter much if no one knows about the product. Or if people don't really trust that it is a "top quality product'.

What you're trying to wrap your head around is marketing. Companies invest a ton of money into marketing. In fact, they usually spend much much more on marketing than R&D. They do it because marketing has a high ROI.

The sellers of cheap chinese carbon are working off of a business model that doesn't invest in or spend marketing dollars. Their customers must find them! And trust them blindly. Theirs is a very different customer base than 9:zero:7 or Borealis or Salsa.

I work in advertising and marketing. I get marketing.

What I don't get, is if you have a great product at a world beating price, why you don't sell it on the open market where you can sell thousands, instead of through back channels on ebay where you can sell hundreds at best.

The chinese understand marketing as well as anyone else- HTC is a chinese company and they ain't selling the HTC one on ebay.

I'd argue that their market is the exact same as 907 or borealis or anyone elses- by only selling on ebay, you are pretty much guaranteeing that the only people who buy your product are serious enthusiasts who are confident in their ability to build a bike up from scratch (which seriously eliminates 90% of the market) and are willing to take a chance on an unknown brand (lowering the number of customers even further)

In my opinion, it isn't the moral high ground to refuse to buy products from people in poor countries based upon the justification that they have a different opinion on of idea ownership. In fact, I view our patent system as doing more harm than good. Other countries aren't doing something they consider bad. Instead, they have a different moral code that views their own standards as superior.

To me, the most altruistic position would be to buy products from companies that result in the highest net good on the planet. Should we enrich a few people in a wealthy nation or help bring a larger number of people out of poverty in a poor nation? It seems morally more justifiable to enrich many rather than a few.

The situation would be different if these were massive corporations that move work around constantly to wherever destitute workers will work for nearly nothing. Yet I don't think that is the case here. Most of these "chinese carbon" companies (that actually have real names) are small organizations built with local management and labor that all work in the same building. This model is what is bringing hundreds of millions of chinese into the middle class.

I bought Light Bicycle rims because of this and I wouldn't hesitate to buy a carbon fat bike from a similar company. But just to make it clear, Light Bicycles manufactures their own design. And yet people still just generically refer to them as "chinese" and and accuse them of all kinds of things. To me, that reeks of unreasoned xenophobia.

There is valid criticism to be made. But if it starts with non-specific criticism of "chinese", chances are that it is not well reasoned.

In other words, the moral high ground is not that clear cut.

The unreasoned xenophobia sucks. But so does the theft of intellectual property. YOu can argue that IP laws are actually bad for creativity in general pretty successfully, but then again, it sucks when someone rips off your design.

There's a little bitty bike shop here in town that designed a really cool hub, patented that hub design and then licensed that hub design to cane creek. It was a pretty ideal set up- little bitty bike shop didn't have the bucks to manufacture it themselves, cane creek needed a better idea and bought one. While it's great to talk about the greater good of the planet or whatever, I don't see how someone ripping off the design and not paying the creator of that design for their work is good for anyone. But it did mean that the shop got to sponsor a team, etc. Those dollars didn't go to a few wealthy people, they went to a couple middle class guys in one shop, and those dollars went from them into our local economy.

Chinese Carbon fatty

Originally Posted by buckfiddious

The unreasoned xenophobia sucks. But so does the theft of intellectual property. YOu can argue that IP laws are actually bad for creativity in general pretty successfully, but then again, it sucks when someone rips off your design.

There's a little bitty bike shop here in town that designed a really cool hub, patented that hub design and then licensed that hub design to cane creek. It was a pretty ideal set up- little bitty bike shop didn't have the bucks to manufacture it themselves, cane creek needed a better idea and bought one. While it's great to talk about the greater good of the planet or whatever, I don't see how someone ripping off the design and not paying the creator of that design for their work is good for anyone. But it did mean that the shop got to sponsor a team, etc. Those dollars didn't go to a few wealthy people, they went to a couple middle class guys in one shop, and those dollars went from them into our local economy.

Everyone seems to be missing the big fat elephant in the room which is the fact that when you spend $490 on a carbon frame you get exactly that - a $490 carbon frame.

There is no magic formula. The only way to make a cheap carbon frame is to use cheap carbon fibre and to get to the stiffness and strength you would expect from a carbon frame, much more resin needs to be used, so the weight savings and 'feel' that a good quality carbon frame will give you are lost.

Higher grade carbon fibre require less resin and that's how they can be made lighter. Manufacturers can of course use the same moulds for different qualities of carbon fibre so the finished article with have the same appearance but the ride can be like night and day.

I tend to go with the saying that 'you get what you pay for' and let's not forget 'if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is'.

In my opinion, it isn't the moral high ground to refuse to buy products from people in poor countries based upon the justification that they have a different opinion on of idea ownership. In fact, I view our patent system as doing more harm than good. Other countries aren't doing something they consider bad. Instead, they have a different moral code that views their own standards as superior.

To me, the most altruistic position would be to buy products from companies that result in the highest net good on the planet. Should we enrich a few people in a wealthy nation or help bring a larger number of people out of poverty in a poor nation? It seems morally more justifiable to enrich many rather than a few.

The situation would be different if these were massive corporations that move work around constantly to wherever destitute workers will work for nearly nothing. Yet I don't think that is the case here. Most of these "chinese carbon" companies (that actually have real names) are small organizations built with local management and labor that all work in the same building. This model is what is bringing hundreds of millions of chinese into the middle class.

I bought Light Bicycle rims because of this and I wouldn't hesitate to buy a carbon fat bike from a similar company. But just to make it clear, Light Bicycles manufactures their own design. And yet people still just generically refer to them as "chinese" and and accuse them of all kinds of things. To me, that reeks of unreasoned xenophobia.

There is valid criticism to be made. But if it starts with non-specific criticism of "chinese", chances are that it is not well reasoned.

In other words, the moral high ground is not that clear cut.

Good points. I believe in spreading the wealth around when possible, but I'm less inclined to send money overseas when half my friends and family are un- or underemployed.

An interesting discussion would be whether buying Chinese goods rewards/enables the human rights, IP abuse, and environmental issues, or whether we're helping them raise their standards to the point where these things will diminish. Their standard of living is rising fast. I wonder how long they can remain the cheap place to get things made.

Everyone seems to be missing the big fat elephant in the room which is the fact that when you spend $490 on a carbon frame you get exactly that - a $490 carbon frame.

There is no magic formula. The only way to make a cheap carbon frame is to use cheap carbon fibre and to get to the stiffness and strength you would expect from a carbon frame, much more resin needs to be used, so the weight savings and 'feel' that a good quality carbon frame will give you are lost.

Higher grade carbon fibre require less resin and that's how they can be made lighter. Manufacturers can of course use the same moulds for different qualities of carbon fibre so the finished article with have the same appearance but the ride can be like night and day.

I tend to go with the saying that 'you get what you pay for' and let's not forget 'if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is'.

You and I see eye to eye with respect to your closing statement, about products in general.

Otherwise disagreed. If you're referring to ultra high modulus carbon, the smoothest of the smooth that requires the least epoxy to bind it... that stuff is so brittle, wouldn't it be foolish to make an entire bike frame with it? Parts of a frame need to bend.

Intermediate modulus is dirt cheap. I get mine for < $20 a pound prepreg, factory direct from Zoltek - here in the US! You really think the Chinese are getting ripped off by Toray?

You're not wrong about ride quality and the wonder of what's going on inside, sight unseen. But that has more to do with frame member shape, optimal compaction, repeatability. In other words, molds!

You're referring to a small variation of the cheapest component of carbon fabrication, the carbon itself. While a Chinese frame not be my thing, I think they understand the 80/20 principle as well as anyone, and, given their proficiency in making frames for almost everyone, can certainly make some objectively-well-made frames for direct marketing. Maybe it's not a $3,000 frame. But what if a $500 frame sans middle man is a good frame?

I'm playing devil's advocate. I wouldn't buy one of these. I don't *know* how the workers covering bladders in China are being compensated. I hope well, relative to their situation at large. If I *knew* well, I'd buy one. It is at this point I realize I'm repeating arguments already made by others in this thread.

The elephant has been and still is whether people who have invested R&D and tooling dollars are getting a return on their investment. It's not even an elephant - it is the backbone of this debate.

I think people realize what they're getting when buying one of these - and it, the physical object - it's not bad. Again, devil's advocate...

Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

I wish I know for sure, but I bet the people making the frames are making the same amount of money regardless of whose frame they are making. I think the majority of the cost differential is in marketing, insurance and profit margins.

You and I see eye to eye with respect to your closing statement, about products in general.

Otherwise disagreed. If you're referring to ultra high modulus carbon, the smoothest of the smooth that requires the least epoxy to bind it... that stuff is so brittle, wouldn't it be foolish to make an entire bike frame with it? Parts of a frame need to bend.

Intermediate modulus is dirt cheap. I get mine for < $20 a pound prepreg, factory direct from Zoltek - here in the US! You really think the Chinese are getting ripped off by Toray?

You're not wrong about ride quality and the wonder of what's going on inside, sight unseen. But that has more to do with frame member shape, optimal compaction, repeatability. In other words, molds!

You're referring to a small variation of the cheapest component of carbon fabrication, the carbon itself. While a Chinese frame not be my thing, I think they understand the 80/20 principle as well as anyone, and, given their proficiency in making frames for almost everyone, can certainly make some objectively-well-made frames for direct marketing. Maybe it's not a $3,000 frame. But what if a $500 frame sans middle man is a good frame?

I'm playing devil's advocate. I wouldn't buy one of these. I don't *know* how the workers covering bladders in China are being compensated. I hope well, relative to their situation at large. If I *knew* well, I'd buy one. It is at this point I realize I'm repeating arguments already made by others in this thread.

The elephant has been and still is whether people who have invested R&D and tooling dollars are getting a return on their investment. It's not even an elephant - it is the backbone of this debate.

I think people realize what they're getting when buying one of these - and it, the physical object - it's not bad. Again, devil's advocate...

Good post. Too many people equate $ with quality. They ignore the marketing costs and profit margin that create much of the markup on "name brand" frames.

Just because an item is cheaper, doesn't necessarily mean it is of lower quality. It may be, but to assume that it is without full knowledge of the product is a mistake.

Chinese Carbon fatty

I'm not foolish enough to be suckered by clever marketing (as he types this post from his iPhone) but at the same time, you have to give some credit to the big brands who promise you the latest, lightest, fastest etc etc Carbon frames.

Yes, they spend a huge amount on marketing but the R+D costs, mold costs, destruction testing costs for legal certification are also a huge part of the price tag.

I've seen and ridden a lot of carbon bikes of varying values and you can definitely tell the difference between a low spec carbon and a high spec carbon. Maybe it's just coincidence that the low spec frames just happen to be cheaper but in my experience, they don't ride any different and weigh no less than a good alloy one. Oh and you don't spend the majority of your time riding worrying whether it's going to fall apart.

I'm not saying that this company are producing poor frames but if they can sell you a frame for $490 that'll ride as well a a $1500-2000 frame then if be very, very surprised.

If you go over to the 29er forum you'll see a thread with 250 pages of experiences with this company's bikes. I've seen a few comments on failures, but VERY few and overall the comments seem to be good. I haven't looked at that thread in a few weeks, maybe there's more dirt there now.

There is a small LBS around here that sells CF bikes, he basically buys the cheap Chinese frames and builds them up with whatever parts customers want. He has zero inventory, he just places orders when people order from him. He sells more than just the CF hardtails, but that is a significant part of his business - "his" bikes are very reasonable as he's buying the parts as a bike shop and doesn't have much overhead. I wonder how he deals with the warranty thing.

subscribed. We've all heard the crap about not supporting the Chinese cahbon stuff, give me a break, the argument is old and tired. I wanted cahbon rims, so my LBS is smart enough to already have a supplier that they buy from, an sell the rims for 200 bucks a pop so guess what I did? I supported my local bike shop instead of ordering from light-bicycle. local shops have the opportunity to get on the cheap cahbon train, or lose out. The big companies will be just fine...

Yes, they spend a huge amount on marketing but the R+D costs, mold costs, destruction testing costs for legal certification are also a huge part of the price tag.

Destruction testing is done to non-proprietary standards and there is very minimal marginal cost associated with doing the testing. There is upfront cost associated with test equipment, but the equipment that is used is all very basic, honestly. We are not testing semiconductor devices here, just simple mechanical trusses. In the case of factories who build frames, they are doing the testing in house for the most part.

Mold costs are also not as expensive as you might think, particularly when they're being done on the margin for someone who is in this composites business. Same with R&D. We are romanticizing the R&D process-- these are simple composite structures with low requirements compared to other industries.

The reality is that the materials cost for carbon is much, much lower than other frame materials and the mold manufacturing costs are quite reasonable as well. The amount of R&D money and expertise for a bicycle frame are greatly exaggerated by the marketing departments of major brands.

The difference between a $5000 carbon frame and a $250 one is largely the marketing and perceived value by the customer.

Originally Posted by HBC

I've seen and ridden a lot of carbon bikes of varying values and you can definitely tell the difference between a low spec carbon and a high spec carbon. Maybe it's just coincidence that the low spec frames just happen to be cheaper but in my experience, they don't ride any different and weigh no less than a good alloy one. Oh and you don't spend the majority of your time riding worrying whether it's going to fall apart.

Please show me a good double-blind test where you (or anyone else) has correctly identified the "better" frame as the more expensive one. These differences are in your head, I'd imagine.

Originally Posted by HBC

I'm not saying that this company are producing poor frames but if they can sell you a frame for $490 that'll ride as well a a $1500-2000 frame then if be very, very surprised.

If anyone buys one then please honestly let us know how you get on.

There's heaps of people with great experiences with frames made by these companies in road and mtb styles. Thinking that a producing a fatbike would be any different is a little foolish.

I am always intrigued when people talk about manufacturers in Asia "ripping off" the design of bikes. There is almost no protected intellectual property associated with these bikes. Almost every bicycle made today is a "copy" of the millions that came before it, whether that's in geometry, manner of construction, etc. There is quite simply very little that's novel in this industry, which is why the biggest price differentiator is in marketing and brand.

Mold costs are also not as expensive as you might think, particularly when they're being done on the margin for someone who is in this composites business. Same with R&D. We are romanticizing the R&D process-- these are simple composite structures with low requirements compared to other industries.

The difference between a $5000 carbon frame and a $250 one is largely the marketing and perceived value by the customer.

It's much more than marketing. Don't forget the cost of paint, decals, shipping, liability insurance, warranty, and markups by bike company, distributor, and retailer. In addition to R&D and marketing, bike companies also maintain a staff of sales, customer service and other overhead personnel, along with rent, utilities and every other cost of supporting a business with a physical presence. Oh, and if you're Specialized, you have a team of lawyers to pay for .

It's much more than marketing. Don't forget the cost of paint, decals, shipping, liability insurance, warranty, and markups by bike company, distributor, and retailer. In addition to R&D and marketing, bike companies also maintain a staff of sales, customer service and other overhead personnel, along with rent, utilities and every other cost of supporting a business with a physical presence. Oh, and if you're Specialized, you have a team of lawyers to pay for .

To be fair, some of those "italian" frames must be painted with freaking diamond dust.

It's much more than marketing. Don't forget the cost of paint, decals, shipping, liability insurance, warranty, and markups by bike company, distributor, and retailer. In addition to R&D and marketing, bike companies also maintain a staff of sales, customer service and other overhead personnel, along with rent, utilities and every other cost of supporting a business with a physical presence. Oh, and if you're Specialized, you have a team of lawyers to pay for .

Completely agree. There's a whole chain here of things that are adding markup AND some value to the consumer. But the difference between the $500 direct from manufacturer frame and the $5000 frame are largely things that do not influence the performance of the frame. (paint, decals, shipping, liability insurance, warranty, and markups by bike company, distributor, and retailer)

If I don't want to pay for a sales force, because I know what I want as a consumer (geo, sizing), I don't care about someone's logo, don't want to pay markups to a distributor, retailer, and bike brand, then the $500 direct bike makes sense.

I ran a manufacturing and food manufacturing plant where we sold the same products under a brand's label, under our own label, and a generic version. It was all the same product.... exactomundo. The private labeled brand sold for more than the house label and for far more than the generic label. The product and its quality were the same, but the service/support/cache were different, and served different groups of consumers.

Smart buyers can get a good deal on a great product if they know where these situations exist. It's the exact same situation here.

The BIG deal with a bike frame is that a catastrophic failure can impact your health. So, inspection and testing and warranty should have a lot of value to the consumer. There are enough horror stories about big name manufacturers not providing much value here, however, that these services are somewhat devalued.

You get an open mold and he tells you you're paying for stateside QC, a good mfg relationship, a warranty, and some minor paintwork. The $450 eBay or direct bike gets $400 worth of markup for that stuff. Specialized will sell you the same product, but adds $1600 of markup throughout the chain because they have a brand presence and additional channel partners to support. You get a sales guy at a LBS and dealer reps and less risk that they're out of business next month, etc etc.

Which price point you want to be at ($400, $850, $2050) depends on to what degree you value all that stuff. Add in the fact that some people on these forums add perceived value to a "naked" or un-branded bike and the factory-direct bikes have an even larger appeal. Doesn't make any of these bikes or transactions "bad".

People who buy the local grocery store's ice cream instead of Ben and Jerry's aren't behaving badly. Same with consumers of generic beer...

I haven't read through this long thread yet so sorry if someone has already said this, but it is my understanding that the feel of a cheap Chinese carbon frame is dead compared with some expensive carbon frames that may still be manufactured in China or Taiwan or Japan to tighter specifications. It takes time and skill and technology to lay up a frame properly. So you might get lighter weight but not as good a ride. There may be exceptions of course.

Chinese Carbon fatty

Originally Posted by modifier

I haven't read through this long thread yet so sorry if someone has already said this, but it is my understanding that the feel of a cheap Chinese carbon frame is dead compared with some expensive carbon frames that may still be manufactured in China or Taiwan or Japan to tighter specifications. It takes time and skill and technology to lay up a frame properly. So you might get lighter weight but not as good a ride. There may be exceptions of course.

And some seem completely happy with their Chinese carbon 29ers.

It's just perceived that way just like how Ben & Jerry's ice cream would taste better knowing that it's Ben & Jerry's.